I don't want to point fingers in any one direction, so I'm replying to
the initial mail in this thread.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Brian Harring <ferringb@...> wrote:
Improvements in this direction are indeed needed, but I would really
like it if the volatile mix of paludis/pkgcore developers would not
explode all over the mailing list. Please don't let the discussions
get personal. The past is the past, don't insert indirect references
to it and heat up the discussion.
On a related note, I really like Zac's and solar's no-nonsense
get-stuff-done-even-if-it-isn't-perfect attitude, and would love it if
everyone else applied it as well (if they don't already). I don't care
if the proposal is perfect; as a potential user of those features, I
want it to be implemented in portage in a reasonable time-frame.
Over-engineering and then designing something to death is not the way
to deliver said feature to the user. It's really stupid when the
design document gets more attention than the implementation used by
90% of our users.
Also, what I'm about to say next may make your blood boil, but tbh,
most of our users do not care about any package manager besides
portage. If a feature cannot be delivered to portage users in a
reasonable time-frame, it's useless. Either fix your design so it can
be implemented in portage, or fix portage so your design can be
implemented in it. Your choice. Don't say "Oh, use XXX package
Thank you for reading!
Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team